The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

Post navigation

161 thoughts on “I’ve been Mannhandled”

I had to look that up on Wikipedia. I like their Bertrand Russell quote; it seems quite apt:One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision
One thing Mann has is certainty ;-) I admit that Mann does have a certain genius: his ability to Mannhandle people.

Oh, interesting. That introduces an omitted variable bias.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable_bias
If they were aware of this problem, as they must have been at least since Wigley’s mail, did they examine it? Are there publications from them discussing it?
The date is “At 10:03 PM 6/5/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote”

If they didn’t follow up on this, does this turn the omitted variable bias into scientific misconduct?

To borrow a quote from YJB/Bill on 3840 (80m morning net) which characterizes Mann quite succinctly given his past performance (a persistent track record in which he continually applies and defends statistical techniques on dodgy/cherry-picked samples et al):

An ego-blinded tyrant is an ego-blinded tyrant. The only difference between them is the level of their influence. Let’s hope Dr. Mann’s level continues to decline. Better yet, let’s not rely on hope, let’s ensure that it does. Thanks for your efforts, Anthony…

4. I’ll be happy to publicly debate Dr. Mann anytime. If I’m as stupid as he suggests, it should be cakewalk for him.

Exactly! If the science is on his side then he can for example come up with numerous, peer reviewed research showing that there is a worsening trend of weather extremes. Perhaps he could show as the acceleration in sea level rise – it’s got to be hiding somewhere. What about explaining WTF global warming has to do with the Mount Kilimanjaro ice cap.

He won’t debate and neither will Phil Jones, and all the other alleged climate scientists because the science was adjusted and tweaked to suit their paymasters desires. Simple as that.

Hey Mikie, I know you visit here so why not come on here and answer questions about the hockey stick? It isn’t so big of a deal for you as you seem to have the time. C’mon now lets kill this bird with a bit of stoning, what say you?

GCMs (Global Climate Models) lack substance because they ignore a lot of important things. GCMs are illusionary. No one should consider GCMs as conforming to some established and supposedly proper methodology. That is why they are therefore more social than scientific. They are not natural. And, the character of a GCM will never have more substance than the characters that fabricate them who then pass them off as a reliable snapshot of future reality.

If you read this, Dr. Mann, please tell us just when and with whom you’ve ever had a debate about the Hockey Stick? (People that agree with you don’t count.)
If you don’t want to answer here yourself, have one of your mannequins do it.

How anyone can read the climategate emails and come out of it with any respect whatsoever for the major players in the climate sweepstakes. Any person who supported the “consensus science” after that, has tipped his hand as a hidden agenda ideologue if he based his belief on their work. The same is true of the whitewash crew who investigated the integrity of the main players.

I’m stunned that Mann would publicly acknowledge his Dunning-Kruger Effect affliction. Even more stunned he could make that self assessment or even recognize it.
But again, he evades the real subject of Sowell’s intent and shifts the focus to the inaccuracy of Sowell’s question.

Successful negotiation of everyday life would seem to require people to possess insight about deficiencies in their intellectual and social skills. However, people tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence. This lack of awareness arises because poor performers are doubly cursed: Their lack of skill deprives them not only of the ability to produce correct responses, but also of the expertise necessary to surmise that they are not producing them. People base their perceptions of performance, in part, on their preconceived notions about their skills. Because these notions often do not correlate with objective performance, they can lead people to make judgments about their performance that have little to do with actual accomplishment.

How many “climate scientists” are there in the world? Tens of thousands? I’m not sure why the world needs so many, but can we please let some of the scientists NOT mentioned in the Climategate emails have some publicity?

I. What is this?
This guide is designed to give you a better understanding of what a noob is, how to recognize them, some details about them, and how to avoid or get rid of them. It mostly applies to online forums, which are the main targets of migrating noobs.

II. Defining ‘Noob’
Contrary to the belief of many, a noob/n00b and a newbie/newb are not the same thing. Newbs are those who are new to some task* and are very beginner at it, possibly a little overconfident about it, but they are willing to learn and fix their errors to move out of that stage. n00bs, on the other hand, know little and have no will to learn any more. They expect people to do the work for them and then expect to get praised about it, and make up a unique species of their own. It is the latter we will study in this guide so that the reader is prepared to encounter them in the wild if needed.

Noobs are often referred to as n00bs

Noob
1. A noob is a person who really sucks at a game but refuses to learn/listen to people who are skilled. Many of them may have been playing the game for a while, but still suck at it. They usually have no hope.

2. Noobs generally get extremely upset over being beaten and can not admit that they are bad at the game. Often they will accuse the skilled people of hacking.

3. This word is an insult in general so people often wrongly use it and just call somebody that they do not like a noob, regardless of skill.

4. This term is often confused with the term “newb,” and people who confuse these terms are usually either noobs themselves, or somebody who is good but is just mean (and has a lot of pride for being skilled).

Newb
1. Newb comes from “newbie.” Somebody new to a game and they will generally suck at it. However, the reason that they suck is because of their unfamiliarity to the game. They have the potential to become good. This is not a derogatory term.

2. Also, newbs are not always bad at the game, as they may have played similar games in the past, but when it comes to knowing where things are, or information- they don’t know.

4. noob 2191 up, 924 down

A “noob” is a person who is new or inexperienced in a subject, usually an online game. Noobs are usually annoying and excessively stupid. Do not confuse noobs with newbs, who are inexperienced players that tend to be more mature and strive to become better.
Noob: can i hav muneys pplsplsplsplzz!!11
Newb: Would you mind sparing me some money?
-LATER-
Noob: pl0x sir!! money plszzz!!!111111111
Newb: Okay. :(

In the gaming world, MM is a NOOB. Unfortunately he has influence which makes him dangerous.

I was looking at that vast expanse of baldy head, then reading the post about Urban greenery sucking up the CO2.
Then I had this mental image of Mickey with a square foot of lawn on his head, doing some good at last

So Sowell’s question to Mann mixed up two names both starting with the letter B. Ya know Mann has nothing left in his arsenal when that becomes his focus of attack. Love you Mikey! Do come on over to play with us on this blog.

We always just called it (i.e., DKE) incompetence. Everyone is ignorant on certain subjects. Ignorance is totally acceptable. Incompetence is not recognizing or admitting your own ignorance. Incompetence is unacceptable in all cases.
For my 70 some odd years I have chosen not to deal with people that are incompetent. I understand this is very subjective on my part, but feel I am much the better for it.

So Sowell’s question to Mann mixed up two names both starting with the letter B. Ya know Mann has nothing left in his arsenal when that becomes his focus of attack. Love you Mikey! Do come on over to play with us on this blog.

Pure self projection Mann,shame you have not the guts to come on here and debate…but then you’ll find real answers from real people, not computer models not made up graphs,data sets, no pal review,just hard questions which you and your ilk do not want the wider public to hear.And you call Anthony ignorant!!

This little episode underlines the need for us all to be very careful if we find ourselves in a similar situation as Dr. Sowell. I would certainly have been tempted to put Mann on the spot as well, but as we can see, any irrelevant error can be used to derail the point as Mike did by claiming Dr. Sowell was referring to a different paper than MBH98 and then stating that that paper didn’t hide a decline. So the B in MBH98 is Bradley not Briffa, so what, Dr. Sowell was obviously referring to MBH98; if Mann didn’t hide a decline why would Jones refer to it as “Mike’s Nature trick”? Anyway, I guess my point is to carefully construct any public questioning of these guys (the team); they’re professional smoke and mirror artists that can make you look foolish in a heartbeat, not to mention that they obviously have no scruples, so even if you don’t make an error they’ll probably just lie.

jaymam says:
June 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“How many “climate scientists” are there in the world? Tens of thousands? I’m not sure why the world needs so many, but can we please let some of the scientists NOT mentioned in the Climategate emails have some publicity?”

Most of those are cogs in the warmist-industrial machine. Appearing from time to time with a scary sea level projection, then disappearing again. They get mentioned often enough – first, when the Old Media tries to sell units with their fresh scare stories, next, when WUWT or somebody else dissects the claims.

III. Behavior of noobs
Since noobs are basically ignorant bastards, they have a lot in common. The most often seen characteristic is their fluency in noobish, which is why it got its own section. They will also be very self confident as if they were the absolute best at what they are in fact the worst at. Also, they are quite agressive and self-centered, and tend to laugh a lot using many L’s and O’s in rapid sucession (the noobish word for laughing like an ultimate retard).

It is their instinct to assemble in packs for defense, and they often attempt to organize packs that they call teams. Unfortunately for them, teams usually result in a total loss of communication and they can often begin to fight amongst each other. These teams are quite unlike those formed by non-noobs.

Noobs have difficulty reading English and cannot comprehend the idea of authority.

Therefore, they have an all-out disregard for rules, basic or not. A good way to identify a noob (bad) vs. a newb (good) is to tell them (or have an authority tell them) which rule they are unknowingly breaking. If they respond with an apology and fix it, they are probably not a noob. If they react by insulting everything around them in rapid noobish and causing general mayhem, it is because they are a noob and have had a small seizure due to their inability to understand what is happening.

Mann’s first whitewash prompted my satire, “Hockey Stickery Doc”. Mann’s April 2010 ‘debate’ in “Discover” magazine with Dr Curry prompted my “Non Science Nonsense” article, which prompted the first use of the term ‘Luke Warmist’ in this quote….

“Cover story, ‘After Climategate, Coming Clean About Global Warming’ is an interview with the creator of the worlds greatest hockey stick, Michael Mann and admitted middle of the rod advocate, Judith Curry. What bold journalistic balance, a warmist and a luke warmist discuss warming”.

Mike’s second whitewash prompted “Penn Panel Limbos Under the Hockey Stick”. Neither Mike’s school science project, nor his behavior have improved with age. The upside….even the worst of us can serve….as bad examples.

We always just called it (i.e., the DKE) incompetence. Everyone is ignorant. There is no problem with ignorance. Incompetence is not recognizing or admitting your ignorance and is totally unacceptable.
For most of my 70 some odd years I have chosen not to deal with incompetence and feel I am, generally, much the better for it, even though it cost me a summer session or two… but, that was many years ago…

Michael Mann will never debate in public. He knows that his limited ability would be exposed and everybody would know how poor a scientist he is. Furthermore his cowardice will stop him ever doing anything outside his Guardian/BBC comfort zone.

If you were as stupid as he says you are, you’d be just like him :) He suffers from his use of psychological projection. He needs treatment.

The unwillingness to debate shows the same thing their unwillingness to share data and methods: they know they are on shaky ground and they don’t want to get knocked over.

What I’d like to see is somebody produce the list of consensus scientists and see what the particulars of “consensus” are. Certain environmental publications like to do scares with claiming extinctions are happening at X species per year, but when asked for where the statistic comes from and which species exactly were extincted for each year, they don’t have them. They make the statistic up or do surveys of the DHMO variety (see DHMO.org for more information on this dangerous chemical).

If we had a list, we could see who is really qualified, and who only holds that opinion because they heard it somewhere second hand.

I have been a research scientist all my working life; I am profoundly ignorant of the system I work on and am constantly amazed at how many things I have been taught, or knew I knew, have turned out to be completely wrong.
Unlike Mann I have the luxury of being able to perform experiments which allow me to test different postulates. He mines data that may or may not record a signal, and yet is quite sure of his answer.

It is amazing how often people like MM make accusations against individuals which in reality are just projections of their own behavior.
_____________________
Don’t look now but Your ignorance of the Scientific Method is showing.

Mann will never debate the deniers or appear with them (a la Sowell), because the old wisdom of you don’t punch down, and don’t argue with an idiot.

And why should he? His side has all the money, his gang controls the Federal research grants, controls the peer-review process, and controls the publications. Politicians and the Academy give him money, and they don’t give it to you. You and your gang, and McIntire and his gang, are ankle-biting nobodies.

You’re only at stage two. First they lgnore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I think many of you are wrong about MM. I think he knows very well what he is doing. And I think it is not honest.
I can’t seem to get the follow button to work. I wonder if it’s something I said ; @PROTONICE

None of this will affect Mann in the slighest. The only thing that may is the current legal action. and of course the continuing flatlining temperatures despite a resurgent la Nina (see 600mb AMSU satellite temps

I believe almost everyone reading this post (including Dr Mann) knows exactly which paper Roger was asking about. Dr. Mann took the opportunity to ridicule a questioner of his science and avoided answering.

I’m certain Michael Mann will have a lasting legacy. Thirty years from now, scientist will look down their noses in derision at students who turn in unsatisfactory and incomplete work and tell them not to show up with “mannish excretions like that ever again” if they wish to obtain a degree.

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
==============
That being said, I don’t “get” twitter.

The tweets do appear juvenile. He seems to have rockstar-itis, or at least sees himself as a public figure worthy of marquee attention. My advice to him would be to end the tit for tat tweets and just stick to the tomes of his hypothesis in the rarefied world of scientific journals, doing replicable research and staying above the fray. If his research is valid and reliable, it will stand up to the rigors of scientific research that attempts to refute it. He should welcome such endeavors. That he apparently does not welcome such attempts, speaks loudly.

I am always happy to refine and enhance WUWT’s knowledge base in the few areas where I can claim some small expertise.
In common usage “ilk” is indeed used to mean “type” or “sort” but the original word has a strong element of place in its meaning.
So, “of that ilk” actually means, “from that place” and by implication, of that Clan or Family.
Think, “-hood” or “neck of the woods”.
Being an archaic term it is most often used humorously, otherwise its use might be considered a little pretentious…hmn.
Anyhoo, I guess WUWT is a place, albeit a virtual place and it is populated by many people who I am more than happy to be associated with; so I guess you could say that I for one am rather proud to be of this ‘ilk’!

A1: None, they don’t know how.
A2: Ten thousand, and they’re claiming they need twenty thousand because it’s worse than expected.
A3: Five, well that actually means just Mike Mann but he has inflated the recent number.

Example of a professorial integrity
(reported in the recent news by none other but odious Seth Borenstein):

“At the National Zoo in Washington, humans who try to match recall skills with an orangutan’s are humbled. Associate Director Don Moore said: “I’ve got a Ph.D.; you would think I could outthink an orang, and I can’t..”

Prof. Mann could borrow some humility there.
We redneck primates are not as simple as they thought.
(And some of us got IQ off the scale, too.)

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: All of them.
They sell the hot air telling people how light bulbs should be banned because they are bad for the environment… and keep the climate change.

Anyone who uses the DKE to describe their opponents is very likely to be suffering from the DKE themselves because they are suffering from arrogance of academic elitism and “mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average.” (Wikipedia)
“Academic elitism is the criticism that academia or academicians are prone to elitism, or that certain experts or intellectuals propose ideas based more on support from academic colleagues than on real world experience.” (Wikipedia)
I have personally encountered this attitude on several occasions dealing with university educated Engineers who have no inkling of how things run in the real world but continue to insist that they are right based on the fact that they have a degree – the worst ones are those who fall into the category of suffering from DKE because they refuse to admit they made a mistake, learn from that mistake and carry on – many ordinary “ignorant” people have paid with their lives because of this type of person exists in positions of power.

The psychological research most relevant to Michael Mann is this: “Why the Unskilled Are Unaware: Further Explorations of (Absent) Self-Insight Among the Incompetent”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702783/
================================
Not sure how to take this comment, but as an unskilled incompetent it may weigh upon my self-insight, for a moment.
Then I will ask for the data.
It was publicy funded, was it not ?

I have noticed a change in the candor and demeanor in the climate blogosphere recently by the Climanista’s. They must be fed from similar sources to the ” Enhanced Mannic Fructose ” dispensed/displayed in this post which proves to be quite “Unbelievable” !

When engaged in debate with people who have a superficial knowledge of climate change I offer my views and then tell them to read this site, Climate Audit and then others such as SkS and invite them to make up their own minds. The most frequent comment that comes back almost invariably praises WUWT/CA and expresses shock at the vehemence of the others.

I have been a major pusher of the idea that the AGW believers are suffering from Dunning Krueger. In fact I read about this several years ago and started mentioning it. As for people on our side of the issue suffering from it, that is laughable since all we do is examine and counter our opponents arguments, not dismiss them and run away. In fact its because of the opposite reason, that people against AGW are in the fight.. they are looking at all the data and then
countering it, not ignoring it. Our confidence only grows when we see our forecasts ( ie the leveling off and now reversal of temps) coming true, not ignoring or denying it

Ray says:
June 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm
People, it should be time we define the: Mann Syndrome
—
How about…
Mann is like a bear in a tree. He can’t climb any higher and he can’t come down.
…At least its a starting point.

I would call him an out and out fraud when he knew what he was publishing was faulty. It was biased and science can not afford to be biased as its strength lays with its data and conclusion. To ignore the MWP and MIA surely shows that AGW is not at all the problem. Pollution in cities is a different thing as is the UHI but CO2 is not the problem, scientists (?) Like Mann, Hansen, and that Gore have the IPCC clapping and putting their hands out. Wot a joke. Wind turbines falling over (off shore Denmark) plus the other problems with the solar industry. And electricity going up all the time. I wrap up in my house to avoid putting on an electric fire. They have banned wood burning where I live or are trying too. Elderly people go to bed and watch TV or cop an enormous electricity bill each winter.

Kev-in-UK says:
June 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Arguing with a fool only requires that you lower yourself to their level…………seriously, don’t bite, it’s a pointless waste of your valuable time!
=================================================
I think the old saying “Never agrue with an idiot, They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience” should be the watchword here

“1. Dr. Mann initially agreed to, then stormed out of a TV interview at the OC Water Summit when he found out the local TV station was interviewing Mr. Sowell because of the question he asked.”
Sowell’s question was riddled with ignorance, and was framed in such a way so as to attack the personal character of Mann. Mann explained this in a clear answer, so if a TV station insists on stirring up controversy over erroneous information, then Mann was more than justified in “storming out”.

“2. Dr. Mann blocks me on Twitter (and many other people who might ask him inconvenient questions), so I can’t respond.”
You respond on your blog, is that not enough? Also, you are free to register and attend conferences and presentations by Mann where you could ask him questions face to face. Finally, if you have scientific arguments, you can submit them to a peer-reviewed journal.

“4. I’ll be happy to publicly debate Dr. Mann anytime. If I’m as stupid as he suggests, it should be cakewalk for him.”
As I mentioned above, go to one of his public talks and face up to him there, like Sowell did. By the way, the tweets were referring more to the posts of WUWT users rather than you (Watts). Also, the DKE does not imply that the people in question are stupid. It implies that they are overestimating their competence on climate science, i.e. ignorant of their incompetence. Imagine somebody who knows nothing about football screaming at a player on TV who she/he thinks should have played the ball otherwise.

Uttering “Dunning-Kruger” is Godwin’s Law rewritten for the Twenty First Century.

Dunning & Kruger received an Ig Nobel award for their work, being adjudged among other criteria, a discovery “that cannot, or should not, be reproduced”
Pay attention Mann. One of the variables measured by D-K is Humour, “discovering” that the witless are just not funny.

Michael Tremblay says:
June 27, 2012 at 7:34 pm
…the worst ones are those who fall into the category of suffering from DKE because they refuse to admit they made a mistake, learn from that mistake and carry on – many ordinary “ignorant” people have paid with their lives because of this type of person exists in positions of power.

Garrett says:
June 28, 2012 at 2:05 am
1. Sowell’s question was riddled with ignorance, and was framed in such a way so as to attack the personal character of Mann. Mann explained this in a clear answer, so if a TV station insists on stirring up controversy over erroneous information, then Mann was more than justified in “storming out”.

Sowell misspoke Bradley for Briffa. And

“[i]n MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect ‘hide the decline’ of the trees after 1960”

is a legitimate background statement prior to phrasing the question. Mann’s reply was rambling and did *not* answer Sowell’s question.

2. You respond on your blog, is that not enough?

Well, to be fair, considering that more people read WUWT than have read MBH98 or attended Mann’s lectures, you’d think that Mann would welcome the opportunity to reply in his medium-of-choice – 140-character snippets.

3. “Unlike Dr. Mann, WUWT does allow guest posts from people with alternate viewpoints.”
Really? That’s not the experience of Dana Nuccitelli.

4. As I mentioned above, go to one of his public talks and face up to him there, like Sowell did. By the way, the tweets were referring more to the posts of WUWT users rather than you (Watts).

Mann specifically wrote “Watts and his ilk”— are you the self-appointed Boswell to Mann’s less-than-Johnsonian Johnson, or did Mikey hire you full-time?

Also, the DKE does not imply that the people in question are stupid. It implies that they are overestimating their competence on climate science, i.e. ignorant of their incompetence. Imagine somebody who knows nothing about football screaming at a player on TV who she/he thinks should have played the ball otherwise.

Rather, imagine someone with preconceived notions of the level of competence of WUWT readers making a fool of himself by denigrating people smart enough to see through Mann’s chicanery…

“4. I’ll be happy to publicly debate Dr. Mann anytime. If I’m as stupid as he suggests, it should be cakewalk for him.”

It wouldn’t matter. He would present evidence, you would say that it is faulty or incomplete. He would respond that it’s not completely faulty or that it is complete enough. He would claim to have won and you would be left shaking your head.

At this point, even if all the climate scientists of the world changed their mind and declared that AGW was a false alarm, the portion of the public who fear AGW would probably continue to fear it. The tendency to accept things you want to accept, even in the face of contrary evidence, is human nature.

A commentor brings up an important point. Mike seems to think he is worthy of becoming a tweetstar even though his tree-ring hypothesis has determined to be suspect, even by his own side. For all the rest of you whose research has stood the test of time (and in some cases sits rotting on the shelf), and has been repeated and expanded on by others, the research is what matters, not the names that go with it. A case in point: someone discovered the helix form of DNA. The proper view is that it was discovered and scrutinized. The backstory of names is just that. Backstory. When that helix formation is milked for use in medicine and forensics, what matters is the fact that it was discovered. If Mann wants his tree-ring use to rise to the level of DNA, he needs to open his research up and let it rise or fall to subsequent scrutiny, else he runs the risk of destroying his research by his own hand.

There’s no police tape across Michael Mann’s office doorway this morning. “Always a good start,” he says, juggling a cup of coffee as he slides his key into the lock.

Mann, a paleoclimatologist, wears a sport coat over a turtleneck. As he takes a seat at his desk, a narrow sunbeam angles through the window, spotlighting a jumble of books, journals and correspondence. Behind him, a framed picture of his six-year-old daughter rests near a certificate for the Nobel Peace Prize he shared in 2007. Propped into a corner is a hockey stick, a post-lecture gift from Middlebury College, which Mann jokingly says he keeps “for self-defense.”

Anosognosia is a condition in which a person who suffers from a disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability.

I propose we define a subcategory of anosognosia for the condition in which a person is incompetent in a field of study but seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her incompetence. This condition would be known as Michaelmannism.

The accusation of the Dunning-Kruger effect is greatly overused – usually by people without any education in psychology. Most often it is a way of saying, “You are stupid” while implying they are intelligent because they have a passing familiarity with the concept and know a term some people aren’t aware of.

It doesn’t work that way. You need to actually show proof of stupidity rather than declaring it.

Bill Tuttle said:Sowell misspoke Bradley for Briffa. And
“[i]n MBH98, your paper Dr. Mann, has a similar problem to the Briffa data. Your solution was to not use tree core data after 1960 and to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect ‘hide the decline’ of the trees after 1960”
is a legitimate background statement prior to phrasing the question. Mann’s reply was rambling and did *not* answer Sowell’s question.
I really am wasting my time apparently. Go look at the papers in question. Really, do go look them up. At a minimum you’ll get the abstracts, but there should be PDF’s lying about on the web somewhere. There’s no splicing of temp data in MBH98. That’s in MBH99. And it wasn’t to hide the decline in tree ring temps. None of those papers (and not even Briffa’s 98 paper) hid the decline. Sowell is confused. He’s made a mish-mash of MBH98, MBH99, Briffa98 and Jones et al (a 1999 WMO report).

Garrett says:
June 28, 2012 at 9:57 am
I really am wasting my time apparently. Go look at the papers in question. Really, do go look them up. At a minimum you’ll get the abstracts, but there should be PDF’s lying about on the web somewhere. There’s no splicing of temp data in MBH98. That’s in MBH99. And it wasn’t to hide the decline in tree ring temps.

I really need to start keeping notes. My bad for not realizing that MBH98 was the paper that used the bristlecone pine as North America’s “dominant pattern of variance,” together with “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects”http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/mbh98-mann-hockey-stick
in order to make the MWP effectively disappear, although there seems to be some consensus (despite your protest to the contrary) that Mann *did* splice proxy data up to 1980 with instrumental data to 1995 in MBH98. He was evidently so happy with the results that he extended the instrumental data to 1998 in MBH99.http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

I’m glad you confirmed that Mann *did* splice the proxies with the actual temperature readings. So, what was your beef about Sowell’s question being “framed in such a way so as to attack the personal character of Mann” again?

None of those papers (and not even Briffa’s 98 paper) hid the decline..

It is not just on Twitter that Dr Mann fails to engage. I would recommend that folks read Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” (link at top right of page). It chronicles how, on numerous occasions, Mann evaded answering his critics.
The worst part is that Mann, like his fellow travelers, do not stop at failing to engage. They also abuse the English language to create prejudice and polarization. For instance, in the definition of skepticism.

The Pompous Git says:
June 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm
It could have been worse. He might have called you a wildebeest. That’s a common problem among ungulates.

He may have meant “Wilk” — it’s obviously alliterative with “Watts” and he just may have wanted to save a tweet character. Of course, the Wilk were more molluscan than ungulate, and Mann may *not* have wanted anyone to make the “climate science fiction” connection, so, yeah, that’s probably a bridge too far…

During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such
as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a
method was discovered for separating the ideas–which was to try
one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it.
This method became organized, of course, into science. And it
developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It
is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in
understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when
nothing that they proposed ever really worked–or very little of
it did.

But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me
into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of
mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and
so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

Most people believe so many wonderful things that I decided to
investigate why they did. And what has been referred to as my
curiosity for investigation has landed me in a difficulty where I
found so much junk that I’m overwhelmed. First I started out by
investigating various ideas of mysticism, and mystic experiences.
I went into isolation tanks and got many hours of hallucinations,
so I know something about that. Then I went to Esalen, which is a
hotbed of this kind of thought (it’s a wonderful place; you should
go visit there). Then I became overwhelmed. I didn’t realize how
much there was.

At Esalen there are some large baths fed by hot springs situated
on a ledge about thirty feet above the ocean. One of my most
pleasurable experiences has been to sit in one of those baths and
watch the waves crashing onto the rocky shore below, to gaze into
the clear blue sky above, and to study a beautiful nude as she
quietly appears and settles into the bath with me.

One time I sat down in a bath where there was a beautiful girl
sitting with a guy who didn’t seem to know her. Right away I began
thinking, “Gee! How am I gonna get started talking to this
beautiful nude babe?”

I’m trying to figure out what to say, when the guy says to her,
I’m, uh, studying massage. Could I practice on you?”

“Sure,” she says. They get out of the bath and she lies down on a
massage table nearby.

I think to myself, “What a nifty line! I can never think of
anything like that!” He starts to rub her big toe. “I think I feel
it, “he says. “I feel a kind of dent–is that the pituitary?”

That’s just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I
also looked into extrasensory perception and PSI phenomena, and the
latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able
to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his
hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both
mindreading and bending keys. He didn’t do any mindreading that
succeeded; nobody can read my mind, I guess. And my boy held a key
and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it
works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing
in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and
him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened. So I was
unable to investigate that phenomenon.

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And
I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have
been to cheek on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So
I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have
some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading
methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice,
you’ll see the reading scores keep going down–or hardly going up
in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to
improve the methods. There’s a witch doctor remedy that doesn’t
work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their
method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We
obviously have made no progress–lots of theory, but no progress–
in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to
handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I
think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by
this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to
teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it
some other way–or is even fooled by the school system into
thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent
of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels
guilty for the rest of her life because she didn’t do “the right
thing,” according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don’t work, and
science that isn’t science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are
examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the
South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw
airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same
thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like
runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a
wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head
like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas–he’s
the controller–and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re
doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the
way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So
I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the
apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but
they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest;
but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain
temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will–
including Wesson oil. So it’s the implication which has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what
we have to deal with.

We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.

A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the
subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the
only difficulty. That’s why the planes didn’t land–but they don’t
land.

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of
the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the
charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and
got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a
little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the
viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of
measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you
plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little
bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than
that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until
finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn’t they discover that the new number was higher right away?
It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of–this history–because
it’s apparent that people did things like this: When they got a
number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something
must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why
something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to
Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated
the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.
We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that
kind of a disease.

But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of
having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something
that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that
I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are
the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about
that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other
scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after
that.

I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science,
but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool
the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to
tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your
girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be
a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll
leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about
a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending
over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to
have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as
scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a
friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology
and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the
applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.”
He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of
this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re
representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to
the layman what you’re doing–and if they don’t want to support you
under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind
to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should
always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only
publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look
good. We must publish both kinds of results.

I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government
advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether
drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it
would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a
result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re
being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the
government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument
in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish
it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.

Other kinds of errors are more characteristic of poor science. When
I was at Cornell, I often talked to the people in the psychology
department. One of the students told me she wanted to do an
experiment that went something like this–it had been found by
others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A.
She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to
Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment
under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.

I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her
laboratory the experiment of the other person–to do it under
condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change
to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real
difference was the thing she thought she had under control.

She was very delighted with this new idea, and went to her
professor. And his reply was, no, you cannot do that, because the
experiment has already been done and you would be wasting time.
This was in about 1947 or so, and it seems to have been the general
policy then to not try to repeat psychological experiments, but
only to change the conditions and see what happens.

Nowadays there’s a certain danger of the same thing happening, even
in the famous (?) field of physics. I was shocked to hear of an
experiment done at the big accelerator at the National Accelerator
Laboratory, where a person used deuterium. In order to compare his
heavy hydrogen results to what might happen with light hydrogen”
he had to use data from someone else’s experiment on light
hydrogen, which was done on different apparatus. When asked why,
he said it was because he couldn’t get time on the program (because
there’s so little time and it’s such expensive apparatus) to do the
experiment with light hydrogen on this apparatus because there
wouldn’t be any new result. And so the men in charge of programs
at NAL are so anxious for new results, in order to get more money
to keep the thing going for public relations purposes, they are
destroying–possibly–the value of the experiments themselves,
which is the whole purpose of the thing. It is often hard for the
experimenters there to complete their work as their scientific
integrity demands.

All experiments in psychology are not of this type, however. For
example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on–with little clear result. But in 1937
a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long
corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and
doors along the other side where the food was. He wanted to see if
he could train the rats to go in at the third door down from
wherever he started them off. No. The rats went immediately to the
door where the food had been the time before.

The question was, how did the rats know, because the corridor was
so beautifully built and so uniform, that this was the same door
as before? Obviously there was something about the door that was
different from the other doors. So he painted the doors very
carefully, arranging the textures on the faces of the doors exactly
the same. Still the rats could tell. Then he thought maybe the rats
were smelling the food, so he used chemicals to change the smell
after each run. Still the rats could tell. Then he realized the
rats might be able to tell by seeing the lights and the arrangement
in the laboratory like any commonsense person. So he covered the
corridor, and still the rats could tell.

He finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded
when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his
corridor in sand. So he covered one after another of all possible
clues and finally was able to fool the rats so that they had to
learn to go in the third door. If he relaxed any of his conditions,
the rats could tell.

Now, from a scientific standpoint, that is an A-number-one
experiment. That is the experiment that makes rat-running
experiments sensible, because it uncovers the clues that the rat
is really using–not what you think it’s using. And that is the
experiment that tells exactly what conditions you have to use in
order to be careful and control everything in an experiment with
rat-running.

I looked into the subsequent history of this research. The next
experiment, and the one after that, never referred to Mr. Young.
They never used any of his criteria of putting the corridor on
sand, or being very careful. They just went right on running rats
in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries
of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t
discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the
things you have to do to discover something about rats. But not
paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of
cargo cult science.

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other
people. As various people have made criticisms–and they themselves
have made criticisms of their own experiments–they improve the
techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and
smaller until they gradually disappear. All the parapsychologists
are looking for some experiment that can be repeated–that you can
do again and get the same effect–statistically, even. They run a
million rats no, it’s people this time they do a lot of things and
get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don’t
get it any more. And now you find a man saying that it is an
irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is
science?

This man also speaks about a new institution, in a talk in which
he was resigning as Director of the Institute of Parapsychology.
And, in telling people what to do next, he says that one of the
things they have to do is be sure they only train students who have
shown their ability to get PSI results to an acceptable extent–
not to waste their time on those ambitious and interested students
who get only chance results. It is very dangerous to have such a
policy in teaching–to teach students only how to get certain
results, rather than how to do an experiment with scientific
integrity.

So I have just one wish for you–the good luck to be somewhere
where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have
described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain
your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on,
to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

Dave Day, thank you so much for that entire comment. It was pure eye candy and should, nay must, become the hipocratic oath of any would-be researcher. It also needs to be read prior to any and all readings of scientific articles. Again. Thank you.

I agree with Pamela. That must be at least fifteen times I’ve read that Feynman piece over the years, and every time I re-read it I find something new.

The following part applies directly to scientific charlatan Michael Mann’s corrupt pseudo-science:

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

In other words, complete transparency of all methods, data, code and methodologies is absolutely required. Mann does exactly the opposite, hiding everything he can. He cherry-picks particular proxies and throws out those that do not support his pre-conceived conclusions. Worse, when informed before he published Mann08 that the Tiljander proxy was contaminated and unusable, he went ahead and used it anyway, because it gave him the hockey stick shape he wanted.

Proxies are observations. But you cannot, like Mann, carefully select only those observations that support your conclusions. Feynman had something to say about observations and experiments.

Bill Tuttle says:“My bad for not realizing that MBH98 was the paper … with “collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects”http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/mbh98-mann-hockey-stick“
The MBH98 (or MBH99) paper had no such errors. The McIntyre and McKitrick analysis was dismissed a long time ago: they misinterpreted data from a spreadsheet file instead of using the raw data (that was freely available) which was used by Mann et al. Go ask McIntyre and McKitrick if they reperformed their analysis with the raw data. Also, that link above shows the MBH99 graph, even though the heading is “MBH98: The Mann Hockey Stick”.

“there seems to be some consensus (despite your protest to the contrary) that Mann *did* splice proxy data up to 1980 with instrumental data to 1995 in MBH98.”
Again, go look at the paper. Please. MBH98 overlapped (not spliced) instrumental data from 1902-1995. It wasn’t even an important graph in that paper; what was important were the spatial reconstructions of temps for individual years.

“I’m glad you confirmed that Mann *did* splice the proxies with the actual temperature readings. So, what was your beef about Sowell’s question being “framed in such a way so as to attack the personal character of Mann” again?”
There’s nothing wrong with splicing if the justification is explained clearly. But Mann didn’t splice, he overlapped, which showed that the reconstructed and instrumental trends followed one another. Again, if Sowell wanted to criticize splicing and “hiding the decline”, then his beef was with Phil Jones. That he accused Mann of splicing and hiding the decline shows that he has little regard for facts.

“The Climategate e-mails (cf. “Keith’s science trick” and “Mike’s nature trick”) say otherwise.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204452104577059830626002226.html“
Briffa 98 was in Phil.Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, not Science. Yes, he did have a “trick” in his 1999 Science article, but my main arguments are that Sowell, and you, are getting your papers, dates and authors wrong. Sowell was reading from a sheet of paper (so presumably he prepared his question in advance), so he had no excuse to not get those facts right. We can’t begin a proper argument until we’re sure that we’re all on the same page, literally.

On the Twitter blocking: he’s blocked me as well. It’s interesting because I have never mentioned him nor do I talk about Global Warming on my Twitter account. I can only assume he blocks those who follow certain people. It’s crazy of course: if you block all the contrarians you’re just preaching to the converted; bathing in self-ingratiation. It helps no-one.

Garrett says:
June 29, 2012 at 7:32 am
The MBH98 (or MBH99) paper had no such errors. The McIntyre and McKitrick analysis was dismissed a long time ago: they misinterpreted data from a spreadsheet file instead of using the raw data (that was freely available) which was used by Mann et al. Go ask McIntyre and McKitrick if they reperformed their analysis with the raw data. Also, that link above shows the MBH99 graph, even though the heading is “MBH98: The Mann Hockey Stick”.

Au contraire — MBH98 *does* have those errors, and M&M’s analysis was confirmed and their findings replicated:

McIntyre and McKitrick [2005] (hereinafter referred to as MM05) point out a bias in the Mann et al. [1998] (hereinafter referred to as MBH98) Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction, one tending to enhance trends during the last century. Having reproduced the statistical results of MM05, this comment is prompted by further questions regarding appropriate implementation of principal component analysis (PCA) and the presence of discrepancies in their estimate of significance levels.

[. . . ]

MM05 list fifteen records as dominating the MBH98 PC1 (see MM05, Table 1). The MBH98 normalization leads to these fifteen records having roughly twice the variance of the other records,

[ . . . ]

In summary, MM05 show that the normalization employed by MBH98 tends to bias results toward having a hockey-stick-like shape, but the scope of this bias is exaggerated by the choice of normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate. Those biases truly present in the MBH98 temperature estimate remain important issues, and corrections for these biases will be taken up elsewhere.

MBH98 overlapped (not spliced) instrumental data from 1902-1995. It wasn’t even an important graph in that paper; what was important were the spatial reconstructions of temps for individual years.

There is no difference between “splicing” and “overlaying” on a two-dimensional graph.

However, here we have a splice in Mann’s own work, in MBH98 itself no less. How can someone reconcile the splice in Figure 7 and related Supplementary Information with the claim that “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction “?

There’s nothing wrong with splicing if the justification is explained clearly. But Mann didn’t splice, he overlapped, which showed that the reconstructed and instrumental trends followed one another. Again, if Sowell wanted to criticize splicing and “hiding the decline”, then his beef was with Phil Jones. That he accused Mann of splicing and hiding the decline shows that he has little regard for facts.

Garrett says:
June 29, 2012 at 7:32 amYes, he did have a “trick” in his 1999 Science article, but my main arguments are that Sowell, and you, are getting your papers, dates and authors wrong. Sowell was reading from a sheet of paper (so presumably he prepared his question in advance), so he had no excuse to not get those facts right. We can’t begin a proper argument until we’re sure that we’re all on the same page, literally.

The graph you’ve been quibbling about is shown and labeled MBH 98 in several papers — the explanation may lie here:

I then pointed out that Mann had switched Crowley versions between Mann et al (Eos 2003) and Jones and Mann 2004, using an unspliced Crowley version in the latter.

So, there are *two* versions of the graph floating around, both from Mann and neither one identified as his “official” version. The tenor of the post is that Mann continues to lie about Global Warming and you say that the crucial part of your argument hinges on the fact that Sowell misspoke “Briffa” for “Bradley”?

If you’re the same Garrett Steve B (June 28, 2012 at 5:44 pm) mentions, I think he’s made a valid observation…

@Bill Tuttle
You’ve misinterpreted the work by Huybers. He shows that McIntyre and McKitrick’s work exaggerated potential biases in the MBH98 paper because of their choice of “normalization and errors in the RE critical value estimate”. The potential for biases are real, but Wahl and Ammann in a 2007 paper showed that they have little effect on the final result. Huybers recently revisited the issue in a 2010 paper with a different statistical method and reproduced a hockey stick (over the last 150 years) similar to Mann et al. If you’re such a fan of Huybers’ 2005 comments, then please do take a quick look at his 2010 paper, particularly figure 7: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/barcast1_jclimate2010.pdf

Splicing and overlapping are two different things. Don’t try to create your own definition of those words.

Reconstructions of temperatures over the past millennium have now been carried out over a dozen times, by different groups, using different proxy data and various statistical methods. All of them confirm the general hockey stick shape. The notion that “Mann continues to lie about Global Warming” is ridiculous in that context. My argument does not “hinge on the fact that Sowell misspoke Briffa for Bradley”. I am pointing out that his whole statement was a mess and that it’s difficult to have a decent argument when the initial premises of that argument are flawed and misleading. Again, Sowell was questioning Mann about “hiding the decline”, which is not an issue in either MBH98 or MBH99 as those two papers use mutliproxy sources, not just tree rings. Also, MBH98 shows reconstructions up to 1980, whereas “hiding the decline” involves removing data after 1960! Sowell’s statement/question made no sense.